Editing Attachment theory (section)

====Psychoanalysis====
[[Image:Evacuation of Schoolchildren in Japan.JPG|thumb|left|alt=Several lines of school children march diagonally from top right to bottom left. Each carries a bag or bundle and each raises their right arm in the air in a salute. Adults stand in a line across the bottom right hand corner making the same gesture.|Evacuation of smiling Japanese school children in [[World War II]] from the book ''Road to Catastrophe'']]

[[Psychoanalysis|Psychoanalytic]] concepts influenced Bowlby's view of attachment, in particular, the observations by [[Anna Freud]] and [[Dorothy Burlingham]] of young children separated from familiar caregivers during World War II.<ref name="anna">{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/Freud_Burlingham_1943_War_and_Children_k |title=War and children |vauthors=Freud A, Burlingham DT |publisher=Medical War Books |year=1943 |isbn=978-0-8371-6942-2}}</ref> However, Bowlby rejected psychoanalytical explanations for early infant bonds including "[[Drive theory (psychoanalysis)|drive theory]]" in which the motivation for attachment derives from gratification of hunger and libidinal drives. He called this the "[[Cupboard Love|cupboard-love]]" theory of relationships. In his view it failed to see attachment as a psychological bond in its own right rather than an instinct derived from feeding or sexuality.{{sfn|Holmes|1993|pp=62–63}} Based on ideas of primary attachment and [[Neo-Darwinism]], Bowlby identified what he saw as fundamental flaws in psychoanalysis: the overemphasis of internal dangers rather than external threat, and the view of the development of personality via linear ''phases'' with [[regression (psychology)|''regression'']] to fixed points accounting for psychological distress. Bowlby instead posited that several lines of development were possible, the outcome of which depended on the interaction between the organism and the environment. In attachment this would mean that although a developing child has a propensity to form attachments, the nature of those attachments depends on the environment to which the child is exposed.{{sfn|Holmes|1993|pp=64–65}}

From early in the development of attachment theory there was criticism of the theory's lack of congruence with various branches of psychoanalysis. Bowlby's decisions left him open to criticism from well-established thinkers working on similar problems.<ref name="Steele">{{cite journal |vauthors=Steele H, Steele M |year=1998 |title=Attachment and psychoanalysis: Time for a reunion |journal=Social Development |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=92–119 |doi=10.1111/1467-9507.00053}}</ref><ref name="Cass 98">{{cite journal | vauthors = Cassidy J |year=1998 |title=Commentary on Steele and Steele: Attachment and object relations theories and the concept of independent behavioral systems |journal=Social Development |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=120–26 |doi=10.1111/1467-9507.00054}}</ref><ref name="Steele 98">{{cite journal |vauthors=Steele H, Steele M |year=1998 |title=Debate: Attachment and psychoanalysis: Time for a reunion |journal=Social Development |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=92–119 |doi=10.1111/1467-9507.00053}}</ref>